Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:13, 17 January 2014

Welcome!

Hello, LazLong Sr, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Galveston

Hi! I found this discussion: User_talk:RJN#Why_are_you_.22freezing_out.22_anything_referring_to_Galveston

I know that the name of the metro area has changed. It used to be Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (1990) and later it became Houston-Galveston-Baytown (2000). Now it's officially Houston–The Woodlands–Sugar Land because the cities of The Woodlands and Sugar Land have grown immensely. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi ! Actually you are wrong. The OFFICIAL designation by the United States government is the Houston-Galveston area. Please google "H-GAC" and learn the truth. BTW, it is NOT that The Woodlands and Sugar Land areas have "grown" so, it's the fact the census was taken a couple of years after Hurricane Ike devastated Galveston which caused the displacement of more than 10,000 people ! The recovery is well underway and the population in Galveston is returning. LazLong Sr (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If Ike hurt Galveston and that affected it in the 2010 rankings, then it happened, LazLong. Take a look at 2010: http://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/057/508.php - "Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX" - http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/maps/metro/33000us288m.pdf reflects the 2000 rankings and says Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land (name in green). The page states that the 1990s name (the one in gold) was Houston-Galveston-Brazoria. By the way, Googling "H-GAC" returns "Houston-Galveston Area Council" which has nothing to do with the US Census/OMB naming I am describing. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI the census has dozens of names for it's MANY subdivisions of the population. See for an example: http://www.census.gov/prod/ec97/maps/ec97_ma_tx.pdf . The H-GAC is the designation that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has decided represents and administers projects and funds for the 13-county area. The Census does NOT designate official area recognition of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) through the White House as you suggest. As for the White House's OMB, they use both the H-GAC and H-G-B or Houston-Galveston-Brazoria notations. ( See: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/95-04att-1.pdf) and (See: CONSOLIDATED METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS AND PRIMARY METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/bulletins/95-04att-2.pdf ). Let's look at what Houston uses for another variation (See: The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (Houston CMSA) consists of eight counties: Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller at http://www.houstontx.gov/abouthouston/houstonfacts.html)

The point is, the Galveston area which has a diverse population including a sizable percentage of people of color, has been obliterated from the wiki site and replaced by two of the Whitest places in Texas. LazLong Sr (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In naming the metropolitan areas we use what the US Census calls it. Galveston's population has been stagnant and League City is now the largest city in Galveston County by population (only a sliver is in Harris County). As for whitest, not sure Sugar Land still qualifies as it's gotten increasingly Asian (Indian and Chinese). The Woodlands is still heavily White.

As to your assertion ""we (are you speaking for all of wikipedia if so direct me to that rule?) use what the US Census calls it"" I again ask which census designation as there are many in every census ! As to your assertion ""Galveston's population has been stagnant,"" again you are wrong. Galveston has outstripped Sugar Land and the Woodlands in population growth, gaining more than 10,000 people since the 2010 Census. LazLong Sr (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

One more thing. Please have the decency to allow me to reply to one of your responses before flooding my Talk Page with comments. This "write a sentence and post, then another sentence and post - and so on" doesn't allow for intelligent discussion. Please be civil, and make your comment and wait for a reply. LazLong Sr (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly I say "we" as I'm meaning established practice on here. If you go on every metropolitan area Misplaced Pages article it reflects the U.S. Census bureau designation. You ask "I again ask which census designation as there are many in every census !" It's clear it's the latest census issued in 2010. Why would we use the census naming of an outdated census? The census is issued every 10 years and the next one is in 2020.

You say: ""Galveston's population has been stagnant,"" again you are wrong. Galveston has outstripped Sugar Land and the Woodlands in population growth, gaining more than 10,000 people since the 2010 Census."

• The population of Galveston city has decreased.
• 2000: 57,247: http://www.census.gov/statab/ccdb/cc07_tabC1.xls
• 2010: 47,743: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4828068.html

So I was wrong, it wasn't stagnant. :) If you get notifications of me making multiple edits or get edit conflicts, sorry about that. I'll try to keep everything in one edit. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you have no interest in being civil in this back-&-forth. At any rate, as I first commented, Galveston's population drop (about 10,000 people over a period of less than two-months) in the last, out-of-date census was due to a hurricane shortly before it was taken. These storms tend to cause that, check history. However, in the years AFTER the census, taken a half decade ago, the island city's population is returning, mainly people of color, and at a greater rate than the growth in the areas you mention. The rest of your comment appears to be a yet another justification for marginalizing the less-affluent people of color in favor of White people. Let me help you with Sugarland's "diversity" -- Caucasian 66.37% and African American 4.94%. Hope that clears up the area's "whiteness" as you call it. But you really already knew there were few Blacks in your neighborhood. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to come off as not civil. I was mainly faulting my own judgment. However even before the 2008 hurricane there were pressures on Galveston pushing people off the island. I had written some details at Galveston Independent School District about this; GISD had to close schools due to lower and lower student enrollments. Gentrification has been pushing out the middle class and many people have been moving to League City, Texas. There definitely have been people going from the island even before Ike. If indeed people came back to the island and the 2010 drop was just a temporary aberration and the population loss has been made up, a reference is needed for that detail. Who wrote about it? What did he or she say? Do you know of something in The Galveston Daily News? I will show you census data from Sugar Land for 2010. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4870808.html: In 2010 White alone has dropped to 52%. White non-Hispanic is 44.4%. Asian is 35.3%. That is the diversity. Hispanic is 10.6%. Black is 7.4%. Now, it is true that Asian populations and middle class Blacks seem to be more acceptable to Whites than lower class blacks and Hispanics. I wrote about it here: Houston_ISD#Characteristics_of_schools_and_White_enrollment. I had gotten the info from Donald R. McAdams's book about Houston ISD. Do you know of any good books about black history in Houston? I've written articles about the Chinese, Vietnamese, Mexicans, and Central Americans in Houston and I want a reference so I can start an article on the African-Americans in Houston. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You weren't "faulting my own judgment." You were being uncivil and rude just as you were at the end of your most recent post. From your link: White alone, 2010, 52.0% ; Black or African American alone, 2010, 7.4% -- Yep that's just great diversity. ;^) ______ You wrote "articles" so now you want to puff up and start a pissing contest bragging on how many "articles" you wrote. I written news professionally for the AP, UPI, Chronicle, Post, USA Today, Austin American Statesman, Time, and many more major news/information publications - but the thing is my real profession since 1966 is in electronic media. If you were a professional writer, you'd know how to get the data, without plagiarizing someone else' book. LazLong Sr (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the point of Misplaced Pages has come across. Misplaced Pages:No original research states that everything has to come from somewhere else. You can't post original research. So you must look at other people's writing and use that to write your articles. If you look carefully McAdams is being cited again and again and everything is being attributed to him. That's not plagiarism. I still fail to see how I was being "uncivil and rude". I also fail to see how being more Asian is not "diverse". Just to better clarify the position of whites, the 52.0% includes White Hispanics while the 44.4% is solely of non-Hispanic whites. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You didn't say yours were "Wiki" articles. You were bragging, so I wrongly assumed you were referring to a reputable, professional publication. My bad. Yes, your comments "I still fail to see . . ." and "I also fail to see . . ." pretty much covers a lot in this back-&-worth. As to your "clarification," I'm sure you're more comfortable putting as much separation possible between anyone with any color and your All-White folks. LazLong Sr (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We're talking on Misplaced Pages, aren't we? I don't see what's the big deal about a Misplaced Pages editor talking about articles he or she wrote on Misplaced Pages as references to things related to the discussion. I never said I was a Nobel Laureate or anything :) It seems like I can't win with this Sugar Land thing, can I? I'm partly pointing out the difference between "White Hispanic" and "non-White" Hispanic to remind you that the white population percentage is falling in the city, and the minority population is rising, making it more diverse and making the idea "we're not representing minorities by including Sugar Land" less valid. The US government considers "White/Black/Asian/etc" and "Hispanic" to be two different things, so in the Census there are White Hispanics, Black Hispanics, etc. and White non-Hispanics, Black non-Hispanics.

In any case, I don't think your approach is very productive here. If you want to increase minority representation on Misplaced Pages that means encouraging minorities to edit Misplaced Pages and writing articles about minority-related topics and minority neighborhoods in major cities as well as expanding articles about rural towns with minority populations. I want to expand Demographics_of_Houston#African-Americans into a full-fledged article (there is a section about White people below in the overall Demographics of Houston article) and if I have more sources I can do just that. If you know of any good books, feel free to contribute yourself or give me a shout-out :)

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And with your first sentence you show the problem - you've forgotten what we are discussing. Read above the title in bold. It says GALVESTON ! THAT is what we are discussing. Why were ALL references to ANYTHING in Galveston removed from the article?! Heck, you (I assume since you are the one defending it) removed EVERYTHING that referred to the Island City. This includes under media, The Galveston County Daily News, founded in 1842, the oldest continuously printed newspaper in Texas. But it didn't deserve, at least in the eyes of some, to be included in the area Wiki page and was removed. It amazingly reappeared after I started raising h*ll pointing out the self-evident travesty of it's removal. But there is MUCH more that was removed and not allowed back in - while every junior college and secondary school with a building in AFFLUENT (can you say, euphemism?) Woodlands and Sugar Land are prominently mentioned, REMOVED was any mention of Galveston's University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) 84-acre campus with more than 70 buildings, an enrollment of more than 2,500 students which includes colleges of medicine, nursing, allied health professions, and a graduate school of biomedical sciences, as well as three institutes for advanced studies & medical humanities, a major medical library, seven hospitals, a network of clinics that provide a full range of primary and specialized medical care, and numerous research facilities. Nope, someone (you?) didn't think that deserved to be on the Wiki page! And that's not the only Galveston university left out, Texas A&M University at Galveston, offering a PHD in different aspects of maritime studies also was removed. There's much more about Galveston that was REMOVED - I guess because it wasn't AFFLUENT enough for someone promoting Sugar Land and the Woodlands.

You ask for some knowledge about people of color in the Greater Houston area? EVERY TIME someone speaks up for them and/or their community, they get slapped down by some AFFLUENT person saying they should mind "their place" in the area. Put that in your article and you can refer to this discussion. LazLong Sr (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

1. I think bringing up Houston is appropriate since the original article of debate was Greater Houston and Galveston is in the Houston area. If there are enough sources about the black population of Galveston one can start an article about it. History of the Jews in Galveston, Texas exists (I did not write that one).

2. While the article title referencing Houston-Sugar Land-The Woodlands will not be changed (If you want you can make an RFC but I do not foresee that going in favor of the 1990s Houston-Galveston-Brazoria) I did check Greater Houston to make sure it is mentioning Galveston stuff. Because the Galveston Daily News is the newspaper of record of Galveston County it is already mentioned. However I did add other community college systems to the Greater Houston article and I added TAMU Galveston as well. You are welcome to check the edit history to see if things were removed, and if so, by whom

3. On Misplaced Pages there are efforts to cover lower income and minority groups. You may be interested in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias which is intended to correct "systemic bias" towards wealthier countries and peoples. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

1. At this point in the process, it really doesn't matter to me what you think. You've clearly shown your "true colors" as it were. The discussion was ""Galveston, and why ALL references to ANYTHING in Galveston were removed from the article."" It's not about "Black" it is about GALVESTON ! Period.

2. The article title HAS been changed, and with it the removal of ANYTHING having to do with Galveston. Look at the History yourself! If you had, you'd see I put in the info about the The Galveston County Daily News, and it was REMOVED - using "restore" to the "no Galveston" page! It was only replaced after I started raising h*ll. Check the history yourself! I also replaced all the information about Galveston - yes, including the colleges and universities - but there was MUCH MORE that should be in the article and it was REMOVED -- and it is STILL MISSING. Maybe since some AFFLUENT person replaced a small part of what was REMOVED, that small tidbit will be allowed to remain. Thanks.

I KNOW what was removed and it shows in the history. They used "Restore" to go back to the "no Galveston info" page. Check the history yourself!

3. It doesn't matter what "Wiki efforts" are made as long as the AFFLUENT are allowed to slap-down, by removing (using "restore" or whatever method) any mention of something they don't like.

That's Wiki's problem. Unqualified amateurs with nothing but time on their hands can run roughshod over the vast majority of the site. It's made Wiki worthless as far as a reliable reference. People not interested in the truth, just their personal agenda, can change factual information and replace it with their propaganda - as those who are pushing the AFFLUENT Woodlands and Sugar Land have done in this article. Truly sad and the reason I only have interest in attempting to keep the FACTUAL TRUTH posted in a very few Wiki articles. LazLong Sr (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is over. One can only suffer a fool for so long. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've read the rules at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard and I think your constant accusations are way over the line in avoiding bad faith. If you leave this post up or if you remove this latest response, but say nothing else about the matter, I'll let the matter go. But I don't want you to think that making these kinds of accusations against other people without basis is acceptable on here. Honestly I expected a "thank you" for the efforts I've made to get to the bottom of this Galveston thing, but I guess it's just me. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)